4 ms·

What you call "maximal negativity" is what I would call skepticism about spin. Giving Sam an ultimatum, forcing him to choose one or the other, is a very forcef

by gizmo 2y ago

What you call "maximal negativity" is what I would call skepticism about spin. Giving Sam an ultimatum, forcing him to choose one or the other, is a very forceful move. PG is not universally opposed to people running multiple organizations. He's fine with Musk being in charge of Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink and Starlink. I don't think pg was unhappy about Dorsey running both Square and Twitter[1]. OpenAI leadership was fine with Sam in both roles. But Sam had to either quit OpenAI or quit YC, and would get fired from YC if he refused to choose. [1] https://x.com/paulg/status/1235363862159003649 https://x.com/paulg/status/1235363862159003649

zild3d 2y ago
> PG is not universally opposed to people running multiple organizations I don't see why that matters, YC is "his" organization, other organizations can do what they want Take out all the names, and it's just a belief that YC should be run by someone that's all in / fully committed.
- edgyquant 2y ago
  Right but this is him being fired
  - apgwoz 2y ago
    This is Sam being given an ultimatum and making a choice before being fired. Is it effectively the same thing? Yes. But technically, he left to pursue OpenAI. YC never said “You’rrrrrrrrrrrre Firedddd!!!” (In my best Spacely Sprockets voice); it just politely asked him to leave if he couldn’t give 100%.
    - l1nktlst 2y ago
      This semantics argument seems super productive
  - tomhoward 2y ago
    Fired means or at least connotes a specific thing, I.e., is against the will of the departing employee. Leaving the organisation by mutual agreement after an adult conversation to focus on exciting new project is a very different thing to fired.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - gregates 2y ago
      The adult conversation in question being, in a nutshell: "We've decided it's time for you to move on. Would you like the public perception of this event to be that it was a mutual decision, or would you prefer to burn some bridges on your way out?" Sure, in some sense the departing individual chooses to go one way rather than the other.
      - throw0101d 2y ago
        'Mutual agreement' could be that the employer didn't want the employee, and the employee was tired of BS being unreasonably dumped on them: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal (Not saying that this is such a situation.)
      - lolinder 2y ago
        Except that isn't at all what Paul is claiming here—he says YC offered him the choice between running YC and running OpenAI but not both at once. Altman chose OpenAI. That might have been the obvious choice in the circumstances (it certainly appears so in retrospect), but that doesn't turn the conversation into the kind you're claiming.
      - tomhoward 2y ago
        Or the adult conversation was: you need to pick one thing to focus on, we’d prefer it was YC but obviously we can’t force you to choose YC. PG’s telling if it, and Occam’s Razer, support that version. Many people here want to imagine that it was vastly more dramatic than this, or need to reinterpret the word “fired” to support the narrative that Sam is bad. I understand it can be fun to think that way. For the record I’m no great fan of OpenAI and I think people who are convinced they are about to achieve AGI are, er, mistaken. I mostly just care about correct definitions of words and avoiding sensationalism.
  - AlwaysRock 2y ago
    The entire point of the tweet is to explain that he wasnt fired.
    - fwip 2y ago
      Yeah, and the tweet isn't being honest. Issuing somebody an ultimatum that you know they'll refuse is just a different way to get rid of someone.
      - burnished 2y ago
        Which was also clearly not the case here.
        fwip 2y ago
        Clearly?
      - AlwaysRock 2y ago
        If PG's goal was to show Sam was actually fired, why would he take it upon himself to make a tweet explaining that Sam wasnt fired?
  - imgabe 2y ago
    Being fired does not include the option to stay.
goodcanadian 2y ago
Giving Sam an ultimatum, forcing him to choose one or the other, is a very forceful move. Sure, but is that what happened? Or, did they sit down and have a chat and mutually agree that on what was best? I guess we will never know with certainty (and I frankly don't care).
- ghaff 2y ago
  I don't know what happened either and I wouldn't even be surprised if the parties have internalized it in ways that aren't 100% consistent. I do know that situations arise where it becomes mutually apparent that a parting of the ways is best for everyone concerned even if not explicitly stated. And, in those circumstances, there's a public story that is often not untrue but isn't the whole backstory either because it's simpler for everyone involved that way.
- fwip 2y ago
  Yes, it's directly in the tweet. "We told him that if he was going to work full-time on OpenAI, we should find somebody else to run YC."
- swiftcoder 2y ago
  Is there actually a difference between those two things? When your immediate superior sits you don't for a "chat", and you "mutually agree on what is best", it comes across an awful lot like an ultimatum.
LMYahooTFY 2y ago
Or it's not a forceful move at all. Maybe YC requires more dedication than Altman could provide to both it and OpenAI. You print off companies as if being a CEO is just being a CEO, and as if Musk doesn't work an unhealthy amount of hours. Or maybe there's some secret reason for pg to carry water for Sam and it's worth his integrity.
- fwip 2y ago
  "Secret reason" = Paul knows it looks bad for him to fire the guy. So he comes up with justifications why it's not really firing. Maybe he even believes them.
  - 1024core 2y ago
    You seem to have an axe to grind with @sama. This deep-rooted bias does not make for an honest discourse; as you are just expressing your opinions. If you have some facts to back up your claims, please put them out. Otherwise, I would urge just stepping away and taking a few deep breaths.
    - jazzyjackson 2y ago
      same to you, who cares who's grinding whose axe
      - 1024core 2y ago
        Same of what to me?
tptacek 2y ago
It it nothing whatsoever like being fired.
- fwip 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - stale2002 2y ago
    No its not. Someone doing something bad, like financial fraud or significant lying to the company is much different than a situation where someone is working 2 jobs and is asked to focus on one. To describe the 2nd situation as being "fired" is dishonest. As it attempt to imply that there is some crazy hidden drama going on. Admit that those 2 situations are significantly different.
    - TillE 2y ago
      Why would you assume that "fired" likely means some form of gross misconduct? Typically people are fired for doing a bad job.
      - stale2002 2y ago
        > Why would you assume that "fired" likely means some form of gross misconduct Since you seem to have not been following this story, it is because that is the accusation that lots of people are making against Sam Altman. The rumor, for years, was that he was fired for some sort of significant dishonestly or misconduct. Furthermore, there is other context in which Sam Altman was temporarily removed as CEO from OpenAI, for the stated/claimed reason of not being consistently candid with the board. The obvious comparison that everyone is making would go something like "Well, there is this rumor that Sam got fired for dishonestly in the past, therefore it makes sense why he got fired again at OpenAI for dishonesty". Paul G's tweet is a refutation of and in response to this context that is clear and obvious to anyone who has been following this story.
        2y ago

by gizmo 2y ago

zild3d 2y ago

> PG is not universally opposed to people running multiple organizations I don't see why that matters, YC is "his" organization, other organizations can do what they want Take out all the names, and it's just a belief that YC should be run by someone that's all in / fully committed.

edgyquant 2y ago
Right but this is him being fired
- apgwoz 2y ago
  This is Sam being given an ultimatum and making a choice before being fired. Is it effectively the same thing? Yes. But technically, he left to pursue OpenAI. YC never said “You’rrrrrrrrrrrre Firedddd!!!” (In my best Spacely Sprockets voice); it just politely asked him to leave if he couldn’t give 100%.
  - l1nktlst 2y ago
    This semantics argument seems super productive
- tomhoward 2y ago
  Fired means or at least connotes a specific thing, I.e., is against the will of the departing employee. Leaving the organisation by mutual agreement after an adult conversation to focus on exciting new project is a very different thing to fired.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - gregates 2y ago
    The adult conversation in question being, in a nutshell: "We've decided it's time for you to move on. Would you like the public perception of this event to be that it was a mutual decision, or would you prefer to burn some bridges on your way out?" Sure, in some sense the departing individual chooses to go one way rather than the other.
    - throw0101d 2y ago
      'Mutual agreement' could be that the employer didn't want the employee, and the employee was tired of BS being unreasonably dumped on them: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal (Not saying that this is such a situation.)
    - lolinder 2y ago
      Except that isn't at all what Paul is claiming here—he says YC offered him the choice between running YC and running OpenAI but not both at once. Altman chose OpenAI. That might have been the obvious choice in the circumstances (it certainly appears so in retrospect), but that doesn't turn the conversation into the kind you're claiming.
    - tomhoward 2y ago
      Or the adult conversation was: you need to pick one thing to focus on, we’d prefer it was YC but obviously we can’t force you to choose YC. PG’s telling if it, and Occam’s Razer, support that version. Many people here want to imagine that it was vastly more dramatic than this, or need to reinterpret the word “fired” to support the narrative that Sam is bad. I understand it can be fun to think that way. For the record I’m no great fan of OpenAI and I think people who are convinced they are about to achieve AGI are, er, mistaken. I mostly just care about correct definitions of words and avoiding sensationalism.
- AlwaysRock 2y ago
  The entire point of the tweet is to explain that he wasnt fired.
  - fwip 2y ago
    Yeah, and the tweet isn't being honest. Issuing somebody an ultimatum that you know they'll refuse is just a different way to get rid of someone.
    - burnished 2y ago
      Which was also clearly not the case here.
      - fwip 2y ago
        Clearly?
    - AlwaysRock 2y ago
      If PG's goal was to show Sam was actually fired, why would he take it upon himself to make a tweet explaining that Sam wasnt fired?
- imgabe 2y ago
  Being fired does not include the option to stay.

goodcanadian 2y ago

Giving Sam an ultimatum, forcing him to choose one or the other, is a very forceful move. Sure, but is that what happened? Or, did they sit down and have a chat and mutually agree that on what was best? I guess we will never know with certainty (and I frankly don't care).

ghaff 2y ago
I don't know what happened either and I wouldn't even be surprised if the parties have internalized it in ways that aren't 100% consistent. I do know that situations arise where it becomes mutually apparent that a parting of the ways is best for everyone concerned even if not explicitly stated. And, in those circumstances, there's a public story that is often not untrue but isn't the whole backstory either because it's simpler for everyone involved that way.
fwip 2y ago
Yes, it's directly in the tweet. "We told him that if he was going to work full-time on OpenAI, we should find somebody else to run YC."
swiftcoder 2y ago
Is there actually a difference between those two things? When your immediate superior sits you don't for a "chat", and you "mutually agree on what is best", it comes across an awful lot like an ultimatum.

LMYahooTFY 2y ago

Or it's not a forceful move at all. Maybe YC requires more dedication than Altman could provide to both it and OpenAI. You print off companies as if being a CEO is just being a CEO, and as if Musk doesn't work an unhealthy amount of hours. Or maybe there's some secret reason for pg to carry water for Sam and it's worth his integrity.

fwip 2y ago
"Secret reason" = Paul knows it looks bad for him to fire the guy. So he comes up with justifications why it's not really firing. Maybe he even believes them.
- 1024core 2y ago
  You seem to have an axe to grind with @sama. This deep-rooted bias does not make for an honest discourse; as you are just expressing your opinions. If you have some facts to back up your claims, please put them out. Otherwise, I would urge just stepping away and taking a few deep breaths.
  - jazzyjackson 2y ago
    same to you, who cares who's grinding whose axe
    - 1024core 2y ago
      Same of what to me?

tptacek 2y ago

It it nothing whatsoever like being fired.

fwip 2y ago
[flagged]
- stale2002 2y ago
  No its not. Someone doing something bad, like financial fraud or significant lying to the company is much different than a situation where someone is working 2 jobs and is asked to focus on one. To describe the 2nd situation as being "fired" is dishonest. As it attempt to imply that there is some crazy hidden drama going on. Admit that those 2 situations are significantly different.
  - TillE 2y ago
    Why would you assume that "fired" likely means some form of gross misconduct? Typically people are fired for doing a bad job.
    - stale2002 2y ago
      > Why would you assume that "fired" likely means some form of gross misconduct Since you seem to have not been following this story, it is because that is the accusation that lots of people are making against Sam Altman. The rumor, for years, was that he was fired for some sort of significant dishonestly or misconduct. Furthermore, there is other context in which Sam Altman was temporarily removed as CEO from OpenAI, for the stated/claimed reason of not being consistently candid with the board. The obvious comparison that everyone is making would go something like "Well, there is this rumor that Sam got fired for dishonestly in the past, therefore it makes sense why he got fired again at OpenAI for dishonesty". Paul G's tweet is a refutation of and in response to this context that is clear and obvious to anyone who has been following this story.
      - 2y ago